Why in News? A Bench of the five senior-most Supreme Court judges headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) expressed serious concern about objectionable comments made by a Karnataka High Court Justice (V Srishananda).
What’s in Today’s Article?
- Comments Made by the Karnataka HC Judge
- Watchdog of the Judges of Constitutional Courts
- Previous Instances of Impeachment Proceedings Against the Judges
- Judicial Interventions to Discipline Judges
Comments Made by the Karnataka HC Judge:
- During a hearing, he had referred to a particular locality of Bengaluru as being in Pakistan. In another hearing, he had made an objectionable comment against a female lawyer.
- Though the SC withdrew its intervention after the judge submitted an apology, even a slight reprimand from the apex court to a judge of a constitutional court is uncommon and conveys a powerful message.
- The situation also highlights the constitutional limitations on how the judiciary can discipline judges.
Watchdog of the Judges of Constitutional Courts:
- The Constitution of India [Article 124(4)]:
- A judge of the SC (or any HC) can be removed from office only by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported -
- By a majority of the total membership of that House and
- By a majority of not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting
- And has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Significance of the above provision: It gives a great degree of protection to the judges to ensure that they can exercise their powers without fear of interference from the executive.
- Issues with the above provision - Impeachment or nothing:
- The impeachment, which is a political process, is the only recourse to dealing with errant judges.
- “Proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” are the only two grounds for removal of a judge of the constitutional court.
- The level of political consensus required to pass an impeachment motion, makes the standard for impeachment very high.
Previous Instances of Impeachment Proceedings Against the Judges:
- Only five instances of impeachment proceedings in history:
- Against Justice V Ramaswami (SC, 1993),
- Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta HC, 2011),
- Justice J B Pardiwala (Gujarat HC, 2015),
- Justice C V Nagarjuna (HC of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, 2017), and
- Then CJI Justice Dipak Misra (2018).
- Results of these proceedings: These proceedings were never successful. Justice Sen was impeached by Rajya Sabha and subsequently resigned.
- Alternatives to impeachment: Over the years, the SC has created substitute methods of disciplining judges because, under the current legal framework, the alternative to impeachment is to just turn a blind eye.
Judicial Interventions to Discipline Judges:
- Judicial actions:
- As the court of last resort, the SC’s word is final and binding. This means that through judicial action, it can send a message to errant judges, even if such a power is not defined in the letter of the law.
- For example, a five-judge Bench of the SC headed by then CJI Jagdish Khehar held Calcutta HC’s C S Karnan guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment in 2017.
- Karnan retired less than a month after the SC verdict, and was taken into custody to serve his sentence.
- This resulted in an uneasy precedent, with many voicing concerns about one constitutional court disciplining the judges of another.
- Transfer policy:
- The SC Collegium, comprising five senior-most judges of the apex court including the CJI, recommends the transfer of HC judges.
- Given that the decisions of the Collegium are opaque, this transfer policy can be deployed as a tool to discipline judges as well.
- In 2010, the then Karnataka HC judge (P D Dinakaran was facing allegations of land grabbing and corruption) was transferred to the Sikkim HC.
- The move was criticised as only “transferring corruption” rather than dealing with it. However, Justice Dinakaran resigned in 2011.
